Rock Island daily Argus. (Rock Island, Ill.) 1886-1893, 1887-11-03

aIn Reynolds vs. the United States e9S U.
s., l45 to 1850, it was decided by this court
that, in order to justify the reversal of the
Judgment of the territory of Utah for refus-
ing to allow challenge to juror in GRIM
inal case on the ground that he had formed
and expressed an opinion as to the issues to
be tried, it must be made clearly to appear
that upon the evidence the court ought to
have found the juror had formed such an
opinion that h. could not in law be deemed
impartial. The case must be one in which it
is manifest the law left nothing to the con-
science Or discretion of the court If such is
the degree of strictness which is required in
the ordinary case of writs from one court to
another in the same general jurisdiction, we
ought to be careful that it is not at all relaxed
IN case like this when the ground relied on
for the reversal by the court of a Judgment
of the highest court of the state is that the
error complained of is so great as to amount
in law to denial 10y the state of trial by
an impartial jury to one who is accused OF
crime. We are unhesitatingly of opinion
that no such a case is disclosed by this record.
The claim of the defense that Spies was
forced to testify against himself is disposed
of by the statement that he voluntarily of
fered himself as a witness in his own behalf
and in doing so made himself liable to proper
cross-examination, and the question of what
is proper croSs-examination is plainly
a question of state iaw-not federal
Regarding the claim that the pa
pars and property of some of the
defendants was submitted to unlawful search
and sciznre the court says no objection was
maie-according to the record-to this al
legged search and seizure in the trial court, the
claim having been first set up in the applica-
ton to the Illinois supreme court. This be-
ing the case the United States supreme
court has no jurisdiction The court says
40 give us jurisdiction under section 700 Of
the revised statutes because of the denial by
state court If any title, right, privilege or
immunity claimed under the constitution,
or any treaty or statute of the United States,
it must appear that such title right, priv
ilege or immunity was Specially set up or
claimed at the proper time and in the proper
way. To be renewable the decision must be
against the right set up or claimed. As the
supreme court of the state was reviewing the
decision OF the trial court, to make the CUES
ton reviewable here, it must appear that the
claim was made in that court, because the
supreme court was only authorized to re-
view the Judgment of that court for errors
committed there; and we can do no more.
This is not, as seems to he supposed by one OF
the counsel for the petitioners a question of
the waiver of a right under the constitution,
laws or treaties of the United States, but a
question of claim. If not set up or claimed in
the proper court below, the Judgment of the
state court in the action is conclusive, 50 far
MS the right OF review here is concerned"
"As to the suggestion by counsel for the
petitioners Spies and Fielden, that Spies
having been born in Germany and Fielden
in Great Britain they have been denied by
the court below rights guaranteed to them
by treaties between the United States and
their respective countries, it is sufficient to
say that no such questions were made and
decided in either of the courts below, and
they can not be raised in this court for the
first time. We have not been referred TO
any treaty, neither are We aware of any,
under which such one stion could be raised.
being of opinion therefore that the fed
eral questions presented by the counsel for
the petitioners and which they say they de
sire to argue are not in fact involved in the
determination of the case as it appears on
the face of the record, We deny the writ"
The opinion of the conrt was unanimous